Abrams: ST Movie is Not a Traditional Prequel

[Cary L. Brown]

Kegek said:

Cary L. Brown said:
Unfortunately, it seemed to fall off of that topic and Kegek ended up trying to prove that I was saying something I wasn't.

Not true. Rather than reiterate my arguments, I will provide a link. My final post - also the penultimate post in the thread - contains a number of Venn diagrams and arguments to refute the ones used here. The short version is that Cary's system is too simplistic and assumes a number of false premises, including a rather unified conception of what fans as a whole want.

You tried to state that what I was saying was that "what Cary Brown wants equals what makes for a commercial success" which was never my point. And which took the conversation away from the point I WAS trying to make... which is that the argument that "what fans want" is in OPPOSITION to "what general audiences want" isn't a valid claim.

All your efforts seemed to be about disputing that... and led me to become VERY frustrated, as you "restated" my own statements, INCORRECTLY, at every post.

Enough said, though. The image, above, succinctly, accurately, and COMPLETELY summarizes my view on this issue. What we, as fans, want is basically the same as what general audiences want... we just want a little more in addition to that. No amount of "disputing" or attempted "restatements of what Cary REALLY means" are in any way relevant here. You're welcome to state your OWN opinion, or make your own argument... but not to attempt to turn this into a fight again. If you choose to try to start another argument, I'd be disappointed but I won't play along.

 

[Kegek]

Cary L. Brown said:
You tried to state that what I was saying was that "what Cary Brown wants equals what makes for a commercial success" which was never my point. And which took the conversation away from the point I WAS trying to make... which is that the argument that "what fans want" is in OPPOSITION to "what general audiences want" isn't a valid claim.

But I never claimed that. What I did claim is what individuals (that is each and every one of us) want may be different to what is a success with the general public, it also may be in unison with this success, but it is not an either-or. 'Fans' are not a coherent group with a single bunch of ideas that are pretty much the same as another coherent group, 'the general public'. Neither exist in the absolute sense you imply. Therefore, what you're saying is meaningless.

The Voyage Home was a box office success. Many fans like and even love it. I do not. What does that make me? There's no place for dissension on that Venn diagram of yours; and thus no correlation with reality.

 

[Arlo]

^ Your TVH comparison doesn't apply. His diagram is about expectations regarding an un-released film, not one that is already out.

Edit: Also, his diagram is about the *premise* that fans want more than the general public, which I think is a fair assessment. It has nothing to do with separate expectations of what that *more* is, which would be a far more complicated diagram.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek said:...a rather unified conception of what fans as a whole want.

"What fans as a whole want" generally has a remarkable congruence with what a particular poster wants. Except for me - whatever "fans want" is what I don't.

 

[Vektor]

I think Trek fans and general audiences agree on what they want in terms of general expectations that are not exclusive to Trek movies, things like good storytelling and characterization. Where the fans differ is that they have a whole other set of fanatically held expectations when it comes to Trek, and those expectations are not in any way monolithic or unified. Ask 100 Trek fans what they want in a new Trek film and you’ll get 100 different and often contradictory answers. That alone makes the fans almost impossible to cater to as a “target audience,” but the real problem is that their fannish, dare I say “fanboyish” expectations are frequently incompatible with the fundamentals of good storytelling and characterization. Just look at about 90% of the fan proposed movie plotlines and try to imagine any of them as box office successes. Hell, try to imagine most of them as late-night cable channel successes.

I’m not suggesting that the fans should be ignored, but if you’re going to cater to them then cater to the wants and desires they have in common with general audiences, even if you have to tread on some of the fanboy stuff to do it.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Ovation said:

[[[MAC]]] said:



Otherwise, wider viewer appeal, never has happened, aint never gonna
happen...

MAC

Trek IV puts the error to that statement. Nimoy as Spock on more than one cover of Newsweek (not Star Trek Magazine) is another. TNG as the highest rated show (not sci-fi show, but show) in syndication is yet another. Trek is not as mainstream nor as popular as Star Wars (to use a relatively contemporary example--LOTR is a more recent one, if you wish). And, for a while, Trek languished among the hardcore "devoted fans" as their source of viewership. But there is nothing about the concept that makes it "impossible" for a wider audience to embrace. It's all about the execution of the project. And, if the goal is explicitly (as has been stated) to expand beyond the "devoted fans", then the filmmakers CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be held hostage to their "requirements". Cynical as it may be, the studio assumes (correctly) that the overwhelming bulk of the "devoted fans" will go see the movie anyway (if only to prove to themselves that the new version "sukx")--so there is no commercially compelling reason to focus on them. There is, however, every reason to try to expand the viewing audience base.

It's entertainment, not religion. And no one is going to come and collect anyone's "originals" and take them away forever. The "fans" don't "own" Trek.

Actually, I think TNG at least by now is losing ground to other scifis as well as other shows. I don't know that Stargate is strictly speaking "syndicated" (I'm not clear on the definition) but Stargate in any incarnation is more popular than TNG is now. And if you leave the scifi end of the pool to include stuff like Bravo's Top Chef or Project Runway, CSI (any of them), or MASH, Trek has a hard time keeping up. Another thing, if ST:TNG were the most popular syndicated show, I find it hard to believe that such ratings gold isn't anywhere to be found on basic cable. Even Spike owned and run by Paramount, can't find room in their lineup for TNG.

The concept itself may still be good, but I really doubt that anything named Star Trek will ever be considered remotely "cool". It's going to be uphill all the way just to get J. Random Normal Guy to give Trek a chance. That's probably the biggest problem Trek has -- the fans have given Trek such a bad name that Trek Muggles wouldn't be caught dead walking into that theater.

That's why I'm not sure that a big budget and $400 million in expectations is a good idea. It can't deliver unless Abrams manages to make it cool to like Trek again. Unfortunately I fear that the audience on opening night will be wearing Spock ears.

 

[Sharr Khan]

The concept itself may still be good, but I really doubt that anything named Star Trek will ever be considered remotely "cool". It's going to be uphill all the way just to get J. Random Normal Guy to give Trek a chance.

Any product rightly tailored and marketed can be made "cool", the only thing that has been preventing Star Trek from doing this isn't Star Trek itself - but that's its become production and targeting has become so insular.

There are no true stumbling blocks built into the product of Star Trek that keeps it from being popular. When you look at it outside of the eyes of fans its just like any other piece or entertainment, if its first and foremost GOOD people will care and when rightly marketed can be sold to the "masses". Or least those willing to spend a few hours or their time at a movie and ten bucks.

Sharr

 

[xortex]

Yea but would Gene R. And Gene Coon would have considered it 'Star Trek' for all intents and purposes ? or is it going to be a thrill ride for the kiddies and not children of all ages. It is going to be clever and not thoughtful like the rest of Trek since TOS. It's all about details, vision and concept.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Maybe the new movie will take place in the timeline that Future Guy and Archer have messed up, so it won't be a traditional prequel, but more some kind of sequel.

The only prequel part will be old Spock returning from the future of the original timeline in order to fix whatever damage has been done.

So, how does Nero fit in there? No idea. Maybe he will turn out to be Future Guy?

 

[Kinnison]

Wait, they never revealed who Future Guy was on ENT?

 

[Oso Blanco]

Kinnison said:
Wait, they never revealed who Future Guy was on ENT?

No, they didn't.

Call me a fanboy wanker, but I'd LOVE to see this mystery being resolved in a big budget movie.

 

[scotthm]

Oso Blanco said:

Kinnison said:
Wait, they never revealed who Future Guy was on ENT?

No, they didn't.
`
Call me a fanboy wanker, but I'd LOVE to see this mystery being resolved in a big budget movie.

But only if they can fit in the red-eyed, gray alien Nazis.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
Yea but would Gene R. And Gene Coon would have considered it 'Star Trek' for all intents and purposes ?

That's a meaningless rhetorical question - you have no idea whatever of the correct answer to it, nor do I.

 

[Franklin]

Starship Polaris said:

xortex said:
Yea but would Gene R. And Gene Coon would have considered it 'Star Trek' for all intents and purposes ?

That's a meaningless rhetorical question - you have no idea whatever of the correct answer to it, nor do I.

Still, I do think it would be fair to guess the Genes would be pleased with anything that continued to make "Star Trek" a commercial success. It's not art or a religion, it's a product (though even religions adapt to the times to stay relevant).
Roddenberry himself walked away from the product between seasons two and three after it no longer seemed viable (a guy's gotta make a living).

 

[gobstopper]

Why is "What Fans Want" bigger than
"What Everyone Else Wants"?

...

Oh...

because there are more Fans than non fans. :thumbs up:

...



...

:haha:

Nice try.

Is this going to be, "Well the non fans are Stupid tm and want Kewl tm stuff" thread?

 

[Ovation]

BalthierTheGreat said:

Ovation said:

[[[MAC]]] said:



Otherwise, wider viewer appeal, never has happened, aint never gonna
happen...

MAC

Trek IV puts the error to that statement. Nimoy as Spock on more than one cover of Newsweek (not Star Trek Magazine) is another. TNG as the highest rated show (not sci-fi show, but show) in syndication is yet another. Trek is not as mainstream nor as popular as Star Wars (to use a relatively contemporary example--LOTR is a more recent one, if you wish). And, for a while, Trek languished among the hardcore "devoted fans" as their source of viewership. But there is nothing about the concept that makes it "impossible" for a wider audience to embrace. It's all about the execution of the project. And, if the goal is explicitly (as has been stated) to expand beyond the "devoted fans", then the filmmakers CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be held hostage to their "requirements". Cynical as it may be, the studio assumes (correctly) that the overwhelming bulk of the "devoted fans" will go see the movie anyway (if only to prove to themselves that the new version "sukx")--so there is no commercially compelling reason to focus on them. There is, however, every reason to try to expand the viewing audience base.

It's entertainment, not religion. And no one is going to come and collect anyone's "originals" and take them away forever. The "fans" don't "own" Trek.

Actually, I think TNG at least by now is losing ground to other scifis as well as other shows. I don't know that Stargate is strictly speaking "syndicated" (I'm not clear on the definition) but Stargate in any incarnation is more popular than TNG is now. And if you leave the scifi end of the pool to include stuff like Bravo's Top Chef or Project Runway, CSI (any of them), or MASH, Trek has a hard time keeping up. Another thing, if ST:TNG were the most popular syndicated show, I find it hard to believe that such ratings gold isn't anywhere to be found on basic cable. Even Spike owned and run by Paramount, can't find room in their lineup for TNG.

The concept itself may still be good, but I really doubt that anything named Star Trek will ever be considered remotely "cool". It's going to be uphill all the way just to get J. Random Normal Guy to give Trek a chance. That's probably the biggest problem Trek has -- the fans have given Trek such a bad name that Trek Muggles wouldn't be caught dead walking into that theater.

That's why I'm not sure that a big budget and $400 million in expectations is a good idea. It can't deliver unless Abrams manages to make it cool to like Trek again. Unfortunately I fear that the audience on opening night will be wearing Spock ears.

TNG was the highest rated show in syndication in its INITIAL RUN. (I didn't think to specify that, sorry.) I wasn't saying it was the most popular show in syndication today. And it is clear that Trek is no longer near the height of its popularity of the late 80s/early 90s. However, as it HAS BEEN popular with the mainstream before, there is no INHERENT reason for it not to become popular again. But, hey, here's a thought. Why don't we wait for the movie to actually come out before we decide? I think Abrams has the ability to make it popular, but there are no guarantees (there are far too many examples of films with excellent talent, top to bottom, that were duds for me to feel "certain" Trek will be popular again. But the odds are in its favour with the current team at the helm--at least, popular with the mainstream audience. With "the devoted fans", you couldn't pay me to quote odds.).

 

[Michael]

gobstopper said:
Why is "What Fans Want" bigger than
"What Everyone Else Wants"?

...

Oh...

because there are more Fans than non fans. :thumbs up:

...



...

:haha:

Nice try.

Is this going to be, "Well the non fans are Stupid tm and want Kewl tm stuff" thread?

From the TrekBBS rules:

Multiple Accounts:

In order to prevent abuse, you may register only one user name at the Trek BBS. Should you want to change to a different user name, email an admin and they will lock your old account.

If you are posting with a second account, the second account will be closed. The moderator may decide to give you a warning, and any warnings you received while posting with the second account will be added to your own account.

And yeah, I know:

If you see someone in a forum who is flaming, or trolling, or spamming, or is posting under a dual user name, etc. etc., please do not respond to that on the board itself. This will only lead to a flame war or will drag the entire thread off-topic. Instead, please send an email to the appropriate moderators.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

xortex said:Yea but would Gene R. And Gene Coon would have considered it 'Star Trek' for all intents and purposes ? or is it going to be a thrill ride for the kiddies and not children of all ages. It is going to be clever and not thoughtful like the rest of Trek since TOS. It's all about details, vision and concept.

Will it be? No way for ANY of us to know, now, is there? You seem to be thinking that it will NOT be any of those things... at least that's the implication I'm taking from your post. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

We have no real way of knowing ANYTHING about the sort of movie we're going to see, except:

1) We know that Leonard Nimoy stated that he LOVED the script.

2) We know some information about settings, timeframes (MULTIPLE ones) and characters (some of whom are unknown, and NONE of whom we know anything about how they'll be portrayed, or how prominently they'll be showcased in the film)

3) We know what one ship, named Enterprise, in this film is ostensibly going to look like. (There's some debate over whether or not we're seeing the ship to be shown in the film, or if that's one of the "alternate timeframe" versions, or WHAT, however.)

What else, really, do we know about this film? The answer is "not very much."

So, despite my displeasure at seeing the ship design not look like the one I know so well, I'm still pretty open-minded about the story to be told. (And I'm hoping that we'll still see the Enterprise we all know in this film, with what we were shown in the trailer being an "alternative" version or a study-model.)

It's pretty counterproductive to be negative about the film before you've SEEN it, isn't it? Before ANYONE has seen it, for that matter.

This COULD be the best Trek film ever. Or it could be so bad that we'll be wishing that it was a spoof version like so many of the other "remakes" in recent years. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, and anyone who claims otherwise is simply deluding themself.

 

[xortex]

Well the writer's love the new Enterprise which does look like a spoof so how good can the script be. When everyone is wrong, then noone is wrong especially when you can blame it on someone else. Don't we all love our own #$%&*.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Starship Polaris said:

Kegek said:...a rather unified conception of what fans as a whole want.

"What fans as a whole want" generally has a remarkable congruence with what a particular poster wants. Except for me - whatever "fans want" is what I don't.

That only makes sense if:

1) You believe that what fans want out of their entertainment is TOTALLY UNRELATED to what general audiences want (which I believe is absolutely and totally untrue).

or...

2) You don't like the same stuff that "normal" people want... good storytelling, good characterization, a believable, engrossing setting, etc, etc.

Since I don't believe that EITHER of those is likely to be the case, I don't believe your statement. Which is not to say that YOU don't believe it... only that if you DO believe it, it means you've got a major comprehension issue with what fans actually want out of their entertainment.

If you seriously think that "fans" want to see an entire movie about nothing but Janice Rand's cabin number and showing "cute" moments with every character ever seen in Trek history... I'd say that you're just totally mistaken. The fans want a good story, good characters, exciting situations, etc, etc... just like everybody else. We just also want it to avoid overtly, unnecessarily CONTRADICTING things we know about its setting, too.

If that's REALLY not what you want... I'd be curious to hear the answer to "why not?"