• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dispatches from the Non-Genre Press...

Captain Robert April

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Something I was directed to that should be of interest (here's the link: New Star Trek Trailer Has Diehard Fans Wondering What Happened)

The latest Star Trek installment has been taken in an entirely new direction by unapologetic action director JJ Abrams. Abrams has made it clear that he’s never been a real Star Trek fan, and is less concerned about getting the technical details of the film correct than exploring the emotional, some say also inaccurate, lives of the characters. The next Star Trek movie is a prequel set after the last television series Enterprise and before the 60s television show. ... It features younger actors and a lot more action and sex. Fans are worried that Abrams is running roughshod over the tried and true franchise in his quest to put out a palatable action movie with mass appeal:

Mild spoilers toward the end of this quote
“My goal was to make a movie about the emotional lives of these characters,” Abrams explained, according to the Associated Press. “We’ve seen a million ships fly by the camera, but nobody is going to care about the ship if they don’t care about the people inside.”
Not so fast, Abrams. Since 1966, Earth has been simply bombarded by the emotional lives of the seminal Enterprise crew, first on television and then in six, count ‘em six, feature films. And that’s just the central narratives: Kirk, Spock and the rest of the gang have been peripherally explored in everything from the clunky ’70s animated series to pretty much every Trek iteration after that.
And then there is the lamentable “nobody” — a term Hollywood should really stop using. It’s simply not true that nobody cares about the ship if they don’t care about the crew: I know a series of gearheads who care more for the ship than they do for who’s inside.
Throw in a few revelations gleaned from a series of Star Trek screenings in Rome and elsewhere in Europe, and it’s time to move to yellow alert.
For one, Zachary Quinto’s Spock is described by AP as appearing “edgy and hostile” in the preview scenes, two words one would rarely associate with a Vulcan, much less one that has spent the last several decades as a model of cool, calm intelligence.
Less but still moderately confusing is the description of Chris Pine’s James T. Kirk, who spends the early scenes of the film as a biker who can’t stop getting into fights in 23rd-century Iowa. Not a problem, except that Kirk was a nut for horses more than he was for horsepower in earlier iterations of the Trek franchise. Trekkies might want to check my math here, but I believe he was riding one alongside Jean-Luc Picard when he met his doom in the film Star Trek: Generations.
A new Trek is needed to resuscitate interest in the canon — I understand that. And the changes make sense coming from a director who has banished Lost into what seems like an insurmountable disorientation, and who claimed in Rome that Star Trek “was never my thing.”
So will it work? Maybe. According to AP, the preview screenings featured several exciting action sequences and even a return of Leonard Nimoy as Spock from the future. But couple these revelations with Entertainment Weekly’s recent cover shots of Quinto and Pine looking like they just walked off the set of The Hills, and there’s reason to be nervous.​
It looks fun enough, but it definitely doesn’t look like any Star Trek I’ve known, and I’ve watched enough episodes and seen enough sequels thanks to my brother and the various geeks I’ve dated. It won’t matter if the film is technically accurate if it cleans up at the box office. Honoring a 40 year old classic is less important than making bank. You just wish they could have picked a director who actually cared enough to honor the foundation of the series while trying to update it. It’s like Abrams ripped the historic mansion off the lot and built a bunch of condos in their place. We’ll have to wait and see, though, and it does look entertaining and updated for a new generation of fans.
Star Trek is due out in May of next year.​
Some of the more interesting responses thus far....

I just can’t get over Angry/Violent Spock in the trailer. Doesn’t he know what a Vulcan is?

LOL @ Sylar.
I have never seen anything Star Trek. Not an episode, or a movie. So, I guess it doesn’t matter what I think of the trailer. But I saw it last night and it looked kind of stupid.

I agree Anna, and to be honest, it WILL be mostly Trekkies that will go and see this movie, so I don’t know why they’ve not at least tried to stay true to the canon. I think the Trekkie backlash will be pretty bad. It’s not -that- difficult to stay true to the characters and the plot line, and still make it exciting.

Looks like just another generic sci-fi action movie.

Yeah, they're really gonna bring in the newbies....

 
Well I suppose I should give you 1 point for effort but take away 10 points for Fail!

Thanks for playing!
 
I agree Anna, and to be honest, it WILL be mostly Trekkies that will go and see this movie, so I don’t know why they’ve not at least tried to stay true to the canon. I think the Trekkie backlash will be pretty bad. It’s not -that- difficult to stay true to the characters and the plot line, and still make it exciting.

Hand up who knows what's wrong with this comment? Anyone?

Yes, that's right! Somebody who talks about Trekkies as though he or she is not one of them, immediately mentions the word "canon" and then goes on to talk about it as though a non Trek fan would even know what it means.

:lol:
 
Ha, nice selective comment posting.

In other message boards I frequent (which have nothing to do with Trek, scifi, etc.), it seems to be about 80%/20% "I'm excited!"/"That looks stupid."

This will draw a good enough audience in the opening weekend to have decent box office numbers (especially given the relatively weak competition in the week of release and before; only Wolverine seems to be much threat).

What really remains to be seen is if it will have any draw past the opening weekend.
 
Considering the ludicrous budget of this thing, it'll need more than a big opening weekend. Hell, TFF set a box office record for its opening weekend.

It's gonna have to take in more than $200 million before it'll even be considered even mildly successful, and then only because it'll give an indication of what the DVD sales might be, because if it was totally dependent on the box office take, it'd have to make over $300 million just to break even.

Any way you slice it, this is set up for disaster just from the financial front. Why they'd want to make it even harder by cheesing off a segment of the only guaranteed audience they've got for this thing is baffling.
 
Considering the ludicrous budget of this thing, it'll need more than a big opening weekend. Hell, TFF set a box office record for its opening weekend.

It's gonna have to take in more than $200 million before it'll even be considered even mildly successful, and then only because it'll give an indication of what the DVD sales might be, because if it was totally dependent on the box office take, it'd have to make over $300 million just to break even.

Any way you slice it, this is set up for disaster just from the financial front. Why they'd want to make it even harder by cheesing off a segment of the only guaranteed audience they've got for this thing is baffling.

What would you do if you are proven wrong?:devil:
 
I know a few people, showed them the trailer...they thought it looked like Transformers 2 when it first started.

Then again, so did I.
 
Any way you slice it, this is set up for disaster just from the financial front. Why they'd want to make it even harder by cheesing off a segment of the only guaranteed audience they've got for this thing is baffling.

Because the only guaranteed audience they have for it is simply not a big economic force. The number of hardcore Trek fans is vanishingly small, internationally, and most of the casual fans need wooing back to the franchise after four years of no new TV show, and over five years of no new movie. Virtually no one cares about Star Trek anymore -- so, it's time to give it a new spin, and make it appealing to a new set of people.

I look at this kind of criticism as similar to videogame players who were aghast that Nintendo planned to roll out with the Wii what was basically a Gamecube (in hardware specs) with a new controller. Gamers mocked the silly name, argued that no one would take it seriously, and claimed no one would buy it. To some extent, among certain groups of hardcore gamers, they were right -- the Xbox 360 is the de facto hardcore gamer's console currently -- but the Wii has far, far outsold other consoles with people who the games industry never coveted before (adult women, senior citizens, etc.) Nintendo's done fine, the Wii is still constantly sold out two years after release, etc.

This new Trek flick is about Star Trek finding a new audience and a new market, while holding on to some of what made it successful and worthwhile to begin with. They'll probably lose some of the hardcore fans who simply can't get over the fact that Chris Pine's eye color is "wrong," but they'll also probably gain people who never thought they'd be interested in a Star Trek flick.

What remains to be seen is if this is a significant number of people. Based on the people I've run into in the past few days -- who haven't paid attention to Trek in ages -- there's a good chance this will be a huge movie.
 
Well, the way I see it is ever since Zef got a glimpse of the E-E through the telescope in First Contact the timeline has been changed and everything is different. If you keep that in mind while you watch this movie you can probably enjoy it alot more. At least that is what I am planning on doing.
 
Last edited:
comments on comingsoon.net seem to be along the lines of:

non-Trekkie: wow! looks awesome!

Trekkie: OMFG?!?! WTF?!?!?! TEHY RUINED IT!!!
 
You've already made up your mind, April. Are you trying to convert people or something? Misery loves company?
 
^^ This has been my personal experience as well. I've been asking around to a lot of people and I'd say about 75-80% of the non-fans I know liked the look of the trailer and claimed they were likely, if not guaranteed, to go see the movie. About the same percentage of fans I know are exactly the opposite, unhappy about what's been done to the Enterprise, different actors, canon violations, etc. A couple have told me they don't plan to go see the movie at all, but like quite a number of posters on this board, I suspect they will anyway if only to be able to bad-mouth it more authoritatively.

Given the fact that non-fans outnumber fans by, like, a thousand to one in terms of potential ticket buyers, I'd say J.J. can afford to piss off a few Trekkers. But then again, my gut feeling is that Trekkers, of which I am one, have a lot less to worry about than they presently think they do.
 
Well, the way I see it is ever since Zef got a glimpse of the E-E through the telescope in First Contact the timeline has been changed and everything is different. If you keep that in mind while you watch this movie you can probably enjoy it alot more. At least that is what I am planning on doing.

Actually, I don't think of it as out of line with anything that's actually gone before.

1. Where was Kirk ever established as a horseman in his younger years? Nowhere.

2. So what if Spock is "too emotional?" At this point, as we know from The Cage/The Menagerie, he was "too emotional." So, JJ isn't toying with anything here. In fact, he's fleshing out a question that's been bothering fans for years...how, exactly, did we get from the emotional Spock of Pike's captaincy to the much more in control Spock of TOS. Indeed, that's been a running theme in TOS Trek...Spock is emotional, then logical, then he moves to extreme logic in TMP, finally coming to realize he's mistaken, and eventually to the very balanced Spock of TUC. Spock's always been on this journey.

3. The only odd thing, really, is the Treknology..eg. the Enterprise herself...obviously the designers have added their own touch, "curvy" to her, which is likely a symbolic reference to her femininity...she's curved, like a young woman, which evokes Kirk falling in love with her when she's under construction (which loads the shot of her being built on Earth with significance).

4. Apropos, 3, the technology of the interior and the look is obviously "more advanced' and "bigger" than the original.

a. The Cage/Menagerie bridge was bigger.

b. The Enterprise bridge has always been different in every Trek movie, sometimes more from movie to movie, sometimes less.

c. Symbolicly, she reminds me of a young, sexy woman who overdresses to impress, yet she's powerful, seductive, and has some hidden secrets. Over time, she becomes more self-confident and covers up...she doesn't need to advertise her sexuality. Indeed, she "ditches" Pike for Kirk. Pike's her first serious boyfriend; Kirk is her husband. She's dressed up for hot night on town with Pike, but later will cover it up and dress down for Kirk, because she's snagged her husband.

By the way, I expect there's a character parallel here in Uhura too. This Uhura is likely a bit mouthy, has an attitude, and can probably school Kirk. She's not going to be taken in by him. She's the woman he can't have; a woman who can, if she wants, have him, and a woman who can tame him. Enterprise is the same way, but she snags Kirk, where Uhura won't have him, and, as we know, Uhura winds up being her "voice," which strikes me as an interesting notion - and like Uhura in TOS, who was sexy and strong, who could wear a mnidress, and yet was a real lady, a "queen," even, so too was the TOS Enterprise we all know and love.

Put another way, in this movie, Uhura is younger and sexier. She's curvier. Heck we see her take off her shirt so we can see her bra. Well, that's the Enteprise in this movie. This is the Enterprise that'll take off her shirt so we can see her bra. Well, TOS Enterprise itself won't take off her shirt, but she's still wearing the sexy miniskirt. There's a evolution here, and I think JJ has picked up on that idea.

d. There could be an in-story explanation--perhaps she is running a LOT of new, experimental technology on this mission. Some will make it to the phase, others won't and will be held over for a long time.

I think some of the naysayers are greatly overstating their case and need to think like a writer/director/designer. There's significance to these differences beyong the "cool factor."
 
What a useless topic. I can pull up another website that says the complete opposite.

Abrams is one of the movie industry's most bankable directors, WHY NOT choose him to direct this new and hip ST that will most likely spawn two more films? Please, go back to your little hole and clear your head, your ire is clouding your judgment of what is BEST for ST.
 
However, does 'bankable' indicate talent or just ability to be in the right place at the right time? How many truly great directors were often truly great when their most memorable pieces were done?
 
Well, success always has a place for luck. I can't say whether STXI will be a financial success or not, but I hope it does. I also believe that Abrams can make STXI very profitable.
 
Well, success always has a place for luck. I can't say whether STXI will be a financial success or not, but I hope it does. I also believe that Abrams can make STXI very profitable.

I just hope it is profitable b/c it's really damn good and not just 'a JJ Abrams film'.

I mean, was anybody going crazy for ST II just b/c o Nick Meyer?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top