Abrams: ST Movie is Not a Traditional Prequel

[PKTrekGirl]

Belar said:

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.

Don't worry. It's being 'handled'.

 

[xortex]

The exclusionary inbred nature of Star Trek is what led to it's demise. It was grinding metel chasing it's own tail and devouring it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

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?

Nice try. All you just did was defined your own lack of comprehension, and your own desire to try to insult and attack (even when you have no logical basis for doing so).

However, although you have NO DESIRE to show respect for anyone else, I'll do you the favor of giving you a degree of respect anyway. I'll actually ANSWER your "questions." You may not like the answers, but I'll give them to you anyway.

You said

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

and then you gave your own (mindlessly and pointlessly CONFRONTATIONAL, and totally incorrect) answer,

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

This demonstrates nothing except that you never took basic math, or that you failed to grasp the concepts behind it. You have no conception of "set theory" (which I learned in grade school) and no grasp of the ideas behind this.

Fine. I'll explain.

"Size" does not represent the relative IMPORTANCE of any element. It represents the number of items in the set. And it is generally not treated as a "scaled" factor at all... that is to say, the relative size of two sets is not necessarily defined by the size of the two representing shapes... though they can be used that way when the point is to demonstrate the relative size of the set.

Now, if the "sets" I was talking about were "number of fans" versus "number of non-fans" you MIGHT actually be able to make that assertion. However, as anyone who had basic reading skills could tell, that's not what the sets represent.

The sets represent the things that each group WANTS FROM THE FILM.

So, it is entirely appropriate, given the argument I'm making, to use a larger circle for the "what fans want" set. This set, as I'm arguing, entirely contains the "what everyone else wants" set. And as I clearly stated (though you obviously were unable to understand), my argument is that the fans want the same thing as the non-fans... but want additional things as well (continuity, etc).

So... non-fans want A (which represents a good story, etc)

And fans want A PLUS B (where B represents continuity, etc)

A plus B is always larger than A alone, isn't it?

If you're going to attack someone else's position, it's usually a REALLY GOOD IDEA to at least make sure you have SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Word to the wise, "Gobstopper." :thumbsup:

(And THAT, kiddies, is why you should pay attention in class instead of going playing with yourself in the back row. )

 

[Kegek]

Cary L. Brown said:
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).

No. It makes sense if I believe that the fans are not a coherent group of people. Right now, the fans are a fairly abstracted concept. Starship Polaris and Vektor have expressed some opposition to them, while noting that some have appointed themselves as their spokepersons.

What is the problem with this picture? Well, unless Polaris and Vektor are in denial (or enjoy wasting their time), they are fans of the franchise. So am I. So are you. This entire board is a testament to the fact that there is no one aspect of Star Trek that fans have a unanimous agreement about.

So we can't speak of 'what the fans want'. That's a false premise assuming that there's far more consistency in the fanbase than the claim suggests.

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

Here is another issue. What is good, as a product of entertainment? What is, in essence, good entertainment? I do not believe that, for example, Transformers was good entertainment. As you are a fan of the film, I hope it's fair to assume you did. This is a matter of taste. And tastes vary wildly. Not just in general, but also among the public and among the fanbase. All a film needs to do to become a smash hit is for a lot of people - but by no means the majority of the world population - to see it in the multiplex.

So, good entertainment is what I, as an individual, enjoy. Or you, as an individual, enjoy. It's a demonstratably subjective quality. You've abstracted the premise of good films without an agreement on what those abstractions mean. Everyone wants a 'good film', but what they consider a good film varies. It's not constant; neither is the fanbase; and neither is the viewpoint of 'normal people' (however one chooses to define the moviegoing public).

I believe the rest of your post largely refers to Starship Polaris, so I'll leave that to him.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Cary L. Brown said:

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?

Nice try. All you just did was defined your own lack of comprehension, and your own desire to try to insult and attack (even when you have no logical basis for doing so).

However, although you have NO DESIRE to show respect for anyone else, I'll do you the favor of giving you a degree of respect anyway. I'll actually ANSWER your "questions." You may not like the answers, but I'll give them to you anyway.

You said

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

and then you gave your own (mindlessly and pointlessly CONFRONTATIONAL, and totally incorrect) answer,

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

This demonstrates nothing except that you never took basic math, or that you failed to grasp the concepts behind it. You have no conception of "set theory" (which I learned in grade school) and no grasp of the ideas behind this.

Fine. I'll explain.

"Size" does not represent the relative IMPORTANCE of any element. It represents the number of items in the set. And it is generally not treated as a "scaled" factor at all... that is to say, the relative size of two sets is not necessarily defined by the size of the two representing shapes... though they can be used that way when the point is to demonstrate the relative size of the set.

Now, if the "sets" I was talking about were "number of fans" versus "number of non-fans" you MIGHT actually be able to make that assertion. However, as anyone who had basic reading skills could tell, that's not what the sets represent.

The sets represent the things that each group WANTS FROM THE FILM.

So, it is entirely appropriate, given the argument I'm making, to use a larger circle for the "what fans want" set. This set, as I'm arguing, entirely contains the "what everyone else wants" set. And as I clearly stated (though you obviously were unable to understand), my argument is that the fans want the same thing as the non-fans... but want additional things as well (continuity, etc).

So... non-fans want A (which represents a good story, etc)

And fans want A PLUS B (where B represents continuity, etc)

A plus B is always larger than A alone, isn't it?

If you're going to attack someone else's position, it's usually a REALLY GOOD IDEA to at least make sure you have SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Word to the wise, "Gobstopper." :thumbsup:

(And THAT, kiddies, is why you should pay attention in class instead of going playing with yourself in the back row. )

Cary...why are you getting riled up and responding to this person when I already stated, in no uncertain terms, that the situation was being handled?

Since you just refused to let the mods handle it, and once again took matters into your own hands, you now have a warning for trolling for this bit here:

(And THAT, kiddies, is why you should pay attention in class instead of going playing with yourself in the back row. )

 

[Photoman15]

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

Yes... Chekov dies, then we find out it's Pytor Chekov, Pavel's brother. This inspires hippie loving Pavel to straighten up and join Star Fleet.

 

[T'Cal]

Photoman15 said:

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

Yes... Chekov dies, then we find out it's Pytor Chekov, Pavel's brother. This inspires hippie loving Pavel to straighten up and join Star Fleet.

While your devil displays your humorous intent, that's actually an interesting idea, having the character refered to only as Chekov and then learning after his horrible and shocking death that it was not Pavel but his relative. Put him in a redshirt and film it!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

PKTrekGirl said:Cary...why are you getting riled up and responding to this person when I already stated, in no uncertain terms, that the situation was being handled?

Since you just refused to let the mods handle it, and once again took matters into your own hands, you now have a warning for trolling for this bit here:

(And THAT, kiddies, is why you should pay attention in class instead of going playing with yourself in the back row. )

Ummm... possibly because when I hit reply, you had not yet "handled" it?

You DO realize that people generally read things in sequence, and when your post had not even been posted yet, it was damned hard for me to read it. Now if I had a time machine, that might be on-target. But my time machine is broken at the moment... do you have a spare I can borrow?

 

[Photoman15]

T'Cal said:

Photoman15 said:

C.E. Evans said:
Chekov dies in the movie.

You heard it here first.

Yes... Chekov dies, then we find out it's Pytor Chekov, Pavel's brother. This inspires hippie loving Pavel to straighten up and join Star Fleet.

While your devil displays your humorous intent, that's actually an interesting idea, having the character refered to only as Chekov and then learning after his horrible and shocking death that it was not Pavel but his relative. Put him in a redshirt and film it!

Actually I liked the idea when I came up with it, I just put the devil there because I know someone will point out that Sulu says Chekov doesn't have a brother when Chekov was freaking out in one episode. Maybe the pain of losing him makes Chekov not tell anyone about Pytor. I was thinking that he's just known as Cadet (or whatever position he's in the movie) Chekov

 

[Balthier the Great]

Ovation said:
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.).

Well there are problems, not necesarily with concept but with the public's perceptions.

People who like Trek have been more or less portrayed as pathetic losers living in mom's house watching Trek DVDs, building Trek models, and wearing a starfleet uniform. Just the image you want your date to have of you. In the eyes on most teenagers, being seen walking into a Star Trek movie is declaring their nerddom.

The other problem is that the product is once again percieved as not very good quality. Unless you're over 50 or so, Trek wasn't really ever mainstream in your lifetime. I'm not all that convinced that Trek was ever mainstream in the 1960s either.

What abrams has to do is convince a potential audience to give Trek a chance, and do so in spite of the mainstream perception of Trek and Trek fans.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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.

Yeah, but that's because you're an

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Captain Robert April said:

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.

Yeah, but that's because you're an

Tell a friend.

 

[xortex]

" Is it really worth living in fear of fans of a television show ? That seems a little silly to me. " - J.J.Abrams

Sure it is. Heck they're paying you enough. Just try not to laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Ovation]

BalthierTheGreat said:

Ovation said:
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.).

Well there are problems, not necesarily with concept but with the public's perceptions.

No more so than with "The Dukes of Hazzard"--not nearly as good a premise, still made a whack of money and had a lot of people in the audience.

People who like Trek have been more or less portrayed as pathetic losers living in mom's house watching Trek DVDs, building Trek models, and wearing a starfleet uniform. Just the image you want your date to have of you. In the eyes on most teenagers, being seen walking into a Star Trek movie is declaring their nerddom.

If they play up the fact that the "guy who makes Lost" is directing; if they market it as "not your father's Star Trek" (which will accomplish two things--create a sense of something new AND indicate that at least some "trekkies" have done a bit more than "kissed a girl" at least once ); if they actually, well, make a good movie--this won't be a problem.

The other problem is that the product is once again percieved as not very good quality. Unless you're over 50 or so, Trek wasn't really ever mainstream in your lifetime. I'm not all that convinced that Trek was ever mainstream in the 1960s either.

Trek was at its most mainstream from 86-95 or so. You don't have to be anywhere NEAR 50+ to have had it "mainstream" in your lifetime. Unless you are referring to TOS exclusively--in which case it was cultural touchstone for many from its initial run well into the 80s, at least.

What abrams has to do is convince a potential audience to give Trek a chance, and do so in spite of the mainstream perception of Trek and Trek fans.

He's likely well aware of this and, given his track record, he's got a great shot at doing just that. Honestly, I think the non-fan's "perception" of Trek is one of vague nostalgia, at this point. Again, let's wait and actually see the movie. I don't know why so many people seem to almost gleefully imagine all sorts of theoretical obstacles to the film's success nearly a year before it is shown.