Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Squiggy, Dec 18, 2015.
People once said the same thing about Star Wars and Fast and the Furious.
The sight of Kirk "popping wheelies" as the director of The Fast and Furious name came up on screen didn't exactly fill me with confidence.
I didn't care for the trailer at all...Hope I'm wrong, but I have a bad feeling about this film.
He didn't do that. Stop repeating this as if it happened.
It never occurred to me for him to do so.
But now I legitimately wish he had popped a wheelie.
Yeah but if you look at something like the Youtube likes and dislikes there are more likes then comments.
So it could just be a loud minority.
Given that we're talking about Youtube comments it's certainly a loud, rude minority.
A vast majority of the people who comment on Youtube videos fit one of the following:
• 13 year old boy
• Moon landing truther
No!!! Star Trek must not be fun. Fun trek is Bad Trek. No trek character must have fun, unless it is in a way depicted in a previous Trek series (playing detective on the holodeck; listening to Spock play the harp) and thus Canon.
If Captain Picard can wear short shorts, Troi can get absolutely hammered, Tom Paris can hang out with Sarah Silverman, Spock can swim with whales, Sisko can fly a SPACE sailing ship, the inventor of Warp Drive can try to teach Vulcan's to dance, and so many other examples of not only stuff that isn't questioned as being proper Star Trek, but is also considered good (or at least okay) Star Trek by and large can be accepted, I think we can handle Captain Kirk riding a motorcycle.
And if he popped a wheelie that would be awesome.
Would JJ haters be happier if Kirk was showing-jumping a horse instead?
What similarities to Guardians of the Galaxy? I keep seeing people say this, and it's just another made up reason to hate on this movie. You know what the trailer was similar to?
Star Trek 2009.
If any movie is "similar" to another, GotG is similar to ST09, not the reverse.
And you judge that on what? The reality is that you usually hear from the people who bitch, not the people who don't. It's why a certain politically based channel manufactures outrage on a daily basis. Because they know angry people bitch and moan.....loudly. As I said elsewhere, when the trailer aired at the theater I was in that trailer was one of two that got a positive response from the audience. And that response started the second Scotty appeared on screen. The general public does not get hung up on the kind of shit that the true believers get hung up on. Like the Beastie Boys.
When your fandom has a generally negative stigma attached to it, the people attaching the stigma will probably run away from the things that fandom likes in order to not have the stigma put on them.
I have met more people who wouldn't be caught dead watching old Trek liking nuTrek.
Yes, because someone who's never seen an episode or watched a movie knows what makes "trek...trek".
I've got a friend who never watched an episode of Star Trek, who doesn't give two shits about sci-fi. He loved ST09. He borrowed my copy of it so many times that I finally gave him the DVD. He loved the last movie and he's excited for this movie. I've got other friends who did watch the classic series, who enjoyed it but were not "fans". They too enjoyed the last two movies and are excited for this one. They're also Beastie Boys fans and loved them getting played in the trailer.
So now it's "big money blockbuster"? Rick Berman once said Star Trek couldn't be a regular blockbuster. J.J. Abrams proved him wrong.
No, Marvel didn't do any of the things you've stated. Marvel has factory produced 12 formulaic, by the numbers films, designed for mass appeal. Marvel is to superhero films what McDonald's is to burgers.
"Fans" liked DS9, Voy and to an extent ENT. That's years worth of FREE Star Trek and nothing the "fans" said could get the public to watch FREE Star Trek. So "fans" aren't going to get the general public to pay to see Star Trek.
This needs to be repeated anytime someone suggests that regular people care what Star Trek fans say or like.
The first of seven rules from the 1967 Star Trek Writers Guide (emphasis mine):
"Build your episode on a ACTION / ADVENTURE framework. We must reach out, hold and ENTERTAIN a mass audience of some 20,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air"
Stated in modern terms:
"Build your movie on an ACTION \ ADVENTURE framework. We must reach out, hold and ENTERTAIN a mass audience or we simply do not get to make more movies."
Looks like J.J. and Co. understand what those guys understood in the 60's: You can't survive by appealing to a select group of people. The goal is, first and foremost, to ENTERTAIN people. And people have been entertained. Just not those who want the same tired old Trek they had on t.v. during the 90's.
I don't mind that so much either; some of my favorite TOS episodes were planet-bound (and I still like Voyage Home, which was mostly EARTHBOUND).
I'm having fun watching and re-watching it and speculating my ass off trying to figure out what the story will be about and what's going to happen and how are they going to solve the problem.
The only thing that bothers me is the idea that the blew up the Enterprise... AGAIN. I like that ship way too much to enjoy seeing it get shot to pieces every single movie.
That depends entirely on what they DO on that planet, now doesn't it?
All the overthinking of TOS really ignores one important thing:
^ THIS HAPPENED
And not in a parody or a Christmas special, but just because the writers thought it would be fun.
This is why I applaud the producers' collective decision to stop behaving as if "hardcore fans" are really worth paying attention to for creative feedback. There are those among us who have come to take TOS way more seriously than the people who actually created it.
Oh, indeed sir but I'm talking about the effectiveness of the trailer here and not the film itself as per the thread title. .
People are wandering all over the reservation with this thread.
My observation is that the trailer content was poorly optimised. Watching the other trailers before Star Wars the other day only confirms that analysis in my mind.
The general audience generally isn't going to be fazed by a scifi montage and a few wisecracks. All that's old hat.
Or there are people like my wife who groans every time she sees regular Star Trek on the tv, and who only grudgingly was interested in watching even the last two movies (she simply refuses to watch any of the older ones) and who saw this trailer and immediately said 'When did Star Trek get cool?'
Not to mention, your friend's decision making process sounds massively bizarre. 'I've heard from other people who know that this movie isn't like any of the other movies that came before it (which I never watched and didn't want to watch), so therefore I won't watch this one because it's disrespecting all those movies (that I don't care about and haven't seen).' That's just a ridiculous reason not to see a movie.
Especially since the first JJ film already established him as enjoying old vehicles. Complaining about that is like complaining about Sisko playing a baseball game in the holodeck.
You're probably right in the end, but to be fair, he was making a point about social media, which simply did no exist in the 90s. I could see that kind of thing having more of an effect today, since many people probably are friends with people who happen to be fans, and few people are going to stop and check who is or isn't a fan when they read the latest facebook/twitter post about whether that new movie was terrible/amazing.
The planet is the part that makes me far more excited for this movie than anything else. I really disliked a lot of the plot contortions in the first movie (and the continued plot contortions which took over part of the second movie as well), but this planet storyline looks like it's going to be
a) completely separate from the previous films storylines, so I can cut the baggage and just enjoy the current story
b) not burdened with building up a new universe (like 09) or tying itself in knots trying to make the villain look 'smart' (like ID)
and c) based on a premise that actually hasn't been done in a trek movie before (being trapped on a planet with no ship or crew to back them up) and actually sounds like a classic scifi storyline with real potential (it honestly sounds like a story which could have been done on any of the shows, as well).
As long as the writing holds up, I'm expecting this to be the best trek movie since FC. Or hoping, at least.
Making movies for "loyal fans," in the case of Star Trek, is a recipe for financial disaster.
Yes, TOS was fun. Only later Trek started taking itself too seriously. That's part of the reason why I ignore most of later Trek.
When people express the idea that Trek basically shouldn't be fun, it's usually because their idea of Trek is TNG and later. A lot of the most vocal critics of the NuTrek movies are fans of TNG rather than TOS.
Over the decades fans got increasingly absorbed and invested in the so-called "Star Trek universe." Well, during TOS that universe consisted mostly of a spaceship full of fun and adventurous characters and the folks they encountered during deep space exploration. All the rest of their world - the Federation, Earth society, even Starfleet (or Star Fleet, who knew in those days?) existed almost entirely by inference and as occasional backstory.
When ol' Enterprise actually finally visited Vulcan, that was massive...as was seeing a small assortment of other Federation aliens in "Journey To Babel." And that was as far as the "Star Trek universe" went.
Yes. At the risk of accusations of trolling, I think there is a divide in fandom which is usually not made explicit, largely between TOS and TNG. Fans of DS9, VOY and ENT are outliers, usually somewhere in between the two great "continents" of fandom. I say this not with a desire to divide, but because arguments seem to start when these basic differences aren't acknowledged. When we talk about Trek, we are talking about different flavours of Trek. It's all Trek, but some like vanilla and some like strawberry.
Merry Xmas, BTW!
And it also was ...
And it occasionally worked in a message now and then.
Fun at times yes, but that was never all it was.
Separate names with a comma.